U.S. hate crime bills/laws

2007-APR-25: The bill exits the House Judiciary Committee:

As of mid-2007-APR, the bill was moving quickly. 1 The House Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on APR-17. The committee held a marathon markup
session on APR-25 during which about 20 amendments were reviewed. A full
list of proposed amendments is available online. 8- Some were:

Dan Lungren (R-CA) wanted a definition of the terms "sexual orientation"
and "gender identity." A definition to the former term was offered,
including heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. However, other Republicans
rejected it on the basis that they did not consider heterosexuality to be a
sexual orientation.

Other additional categories were suggested: age, women who are pregnant.

Louis Gohmert (R-TX) suggested that "sexual orientation" and "gender
identity" be removed from the bill; that was defeated 19 to 13.

Mike Pence (R-IN) suggested a curious amendment: "Nothing in this
section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution."

Louis Gohmert (R-TX) asked a question. The wording of the question and
the answer differ, depending on whether you read an Email sent by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC)
-- a fundamentalist Christian group -- in a mailing
titled "Terribly sad day for Christians in America," or read the
exchange in the Congressional Record:

As reported by the Traditional Values Coalition

As reported in the Congressional Record

Louis Gohmert asked:

"If a minister was giving a sermon, a
Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that
homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out
and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged
with the crime of incitement?"

Louis Gohmert asked:

"if a minister preaches that sexual
relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and
somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of
violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or
induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying
under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced
against the minister?

Artur Davis (D-AL) replied:

"Yes"

Artur Davis (D-AL) replied:

"No"

The TVC news release continued:

"Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct.
It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering
with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the
truth."

"It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth."

"It is about threatening them with prison so they won't dare speak the truth."

"The Judiciary Committee could easily have accepted the amendment, 'Nothing in this section limits
the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution'."

"Rev. Lou Sheldon stated, 'By refusing to accept this amendment the Democrats on this committee have
proven their purpose, to remove freedom of religion from the U.S. Constitution'."
2(Highlighting
removed)

The author appears to equate freedom of religion with the incitement to
commit a criminal act -- namely for a pastor to so arouse vicious hatred in
his congregation against gays, transsexuals, women, or disabled
people, etc. that one member leaves the service and engages in gay
bashing or other hate-motivated criminal act.

The full story is covered on the "Good As You" website. 11

Only one of the dozens of amendments was passed. Artur Davis (D-AL), a
co-sponsor of the bill, offered a change that clarified that the First
Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech would not be affected by the bill.
That is, pastors and other Christians who denigrate homosexuals (or women or the
disabled, etc) need not fear being charged with conspiracy if a someone is
motivated by the speech to commit a violent act. The amendment reads:

"Sec. 8: Rule of Construction:
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed
to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or
any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the
First Amendment to the Constitution." 9

The bill itself was accepted by the committee with a vote of 20
to 14, strictly along party lines.

Sponsored link

Support for the bill:

The Washington Times reported:

"More than 200 organizations have attached their support to the
legislation, including some of the nation's more prominent lobbying
organizations such as the AFL-CIO, American Medial Association
and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."
3

Chairperson's
comments:

Committee chairperson John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) commented:

"H.R. 1592 offers federal protection, in conjunction with state and local
officials, for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race,
religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. These
crimes constitute an assault not only against the victim, but against our
communities and against the very foundation of our Democracy."

"... despite the widespread and devastating impact of hate violence, current
law fails to adequately address these crimes. Current law severely limits
Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against
individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin.
Federal jurisdiction pertains only if the victim is targeted because he or
she is engaged in a specified federally protected activity, such as voting."

"Moreover, current law does not provide for any Federal involvement in a
range of cases -- namely where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or
disability. As a result, if a state or local law enforcement agency refuses
to prosecute these types of hate crimes, the victim is helpless."

"... H.R. 1592 has widespread support. The legislation has 137 cosponsors,
and is supported by more than 230 civil rights, education, religious, and
civic organizations, including the NAACP, the ACLU, and the
Leadership Conference of Civil Rights. Virtually every major law
enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association,
and the Police Executive Research Forum, as well as nearly 30 State
Attorneys General. ..."

"Hate crimes are a stain on our national heritage. We should accordingly do
what we can to better equip our Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies with the tools to prosecute these crimes. H.R. 1592 provides those
critical tools." 4

According to Michael Marcavage of Repent America, this bill "heads for a
vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, May 3, 2007." 5

2007-MAY-03: Bill approved in the House:

According to the OutQ program on Sirius satellite radio, and the
Matthew Shepard Foundation, the House voted to approve the bill with a vote
of 237 to 180. Although this represents a significant victory, the vote is
insufficient to overturn an expected presidential veto. Twenty-five Republicans
crossed party lines to support the bill. Fourteen Democrats did the same to
oppose it.

"I hope that every member has the courage and the perspective that, when
they rise from their bed twenty years from now, they will be able to say --
unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past, who failed the test of
tolerance -- to say that we had the courage to live out the principles that
make America such a wonderful, great, decent and just nation. Vote for this
bill. Vote for our principles. Vote our faith that teaches that we reach
out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill."

"Although this is the first major step to passing inclusive hate crimes
legislation, we have a long way to go to ensure this legislation becomes
law. I am personally grateful to the United States House for recognizing the
grave reality of hate crimes in America. ... I am encouraged that the House
was able to overcome the lies and misinformation being spread by anti-gay
organizations trying to derail this bill. As the parent of a young man
killed simply for being gay, I refuse to be silent and let this bill be
misconstrued by these organizations." 6

The White House issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" shortly
before the vote was taken:

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime,
including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color,
religion, or national origin. ... However, the Administration believes that
H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592
were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he
veto the bill." 7

This seems to be saying that the existing hate crimes act is perfect as is,
giving protection to persons on the basis of their "race, color, religion or national origin."
However, the statement seems to imply that people are not worthy to be
protected from violence on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and disability.To extend
protection to these groups would be "unnecessary and constitutionally
questionable." This is a curious position to take, since it would leave 100%
of Americans unprotected from hate crimes based on the latter four factors.